The erosion of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ron_Conte

Guest
The Council of Trent taught:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

The phrase ‘all their parts’ is essential to this infallible teaching. There is an all too common practice today, in preparing various translations and editions of the Bible, to drop into footnotes, or to drop entirely, a number of different verses that are found in the old Latin vulgate. This practice is contrary to the infallible teaching of Trent that ‘all their parts’ are sacred and canonical. Thus it is not within the purview of Biblical scholars to decide that a verse found in the Latin Scriptural tradition is not canonical or should not be a part of a particular Bible version.

The Bible is being eroded by scholars who increasingly find various reasons to claim that one verse after another is not in the canon and should be dropped.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The Council of Trent taught:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

The phrase ‘all their parts’ is essential to this infallible teaching. There is an all too common practice today, in preparing various translations and editions of the Bible, to drop into footnotes, or to drop entirely, a number of different verses that are found in the old Latin vulgate. This practice is contrary to the infallible teaching of Trent that ‘all their parts’ are sacred and canonical. Thus it is not within the purview of Biblical scholars to decide that a verse found in the Latin Scriptural tradition is not canonical or should not be a part of a particular Bible version.

The Bible is being eroded by scholars who increasingly find various reasons to claim that one verse after another is not in the canon and should be dropped.
Click to expand...
Good point! But the Church is the authority in determining exactly what guidlines can be taken and what liberties editors have in producing Catholic versions based on modern scholarship. Ultimately they can determined what exceptions exist in that quote from the Council of Trent without being contrary to it.

Myself being a fan of textual criticism in a very limited fashion, I do appreciate footnotes that give me variant readings from manuscripts. I have a different view on textual criticism than most, I believe that the authors of the Bible could have and very possibly have written their accounts more than once, giving more and less details each time, which accounts for the so-called omissions and additions and variant readings that go beyond an obvious scribal error. It only makes sense that they would write more than once in order to publish it more effectively, I would.

So as for me, I accept longer readings and shorter readings most of the time because both could have been done by the same author. Such as the longer and shorter ending to Mark, or the Our Father.
 
Hi Roy,

You will it beneficial to refer to Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu in which you find this passage ;
  1. And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.
  2. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority
    /quote°
Click to expand...
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Good point! But the Church is the authority in determining exactly what guidlines can be taken and what liberties editors have in producing Catholic versions based on modern scholarship. Ultimately they can determined what exceptions exist in that quote from the Council of Trent without being contrary to it.
Click to expand...
The ordinary Magisterium, and the temporal authority of the Church, do not have the power to over-rule, contradict, make exceptions to, or decide the meaning of, an infallible teaching by a Council. Such solemn definitions stand on their own authority, that is, on the authority of the Council. Whoever deletes parts of any book of the Bible deletes a part that Trent infallibly taught is sacred and canonical.
COPLAND_3 said:
Myself being a fan of textual criticism in a very limited fashion, I do appreciate footnotes that give me variant readings from manuscripts. I have a different view on textual criticism than most, I believe that the authors of the Bible could have and very possibly have written their accounts more than once, giving more and less details each time, which accounts for the so-called omissions and additions and variant readings that go beyond an obvious scribal error. It only makes sense that they would write more than once in order to publish it more effectively, I would.

So as for me, I accept longer readings and shorter readings most of the time because both could have been done by the same author. Such as the longer and shorter ending to Mark, or the Our Father.
Click to expand...
Placing variant readings in the footnotes is not the problem that I’m referring to. For example, one passage reads as either 70 times 7, or 77 times. It is not a problem to put one in the text and the other in a note.

The problem is dropping verses from the Bible on the basis of modern textual analysis, despite these verses being found in the old and Latin Vulgate. Such omissions are directly contrary to the infallible teaching of Trent.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The ordinary Magisterium, and the temporal authority of the Church, do not have the power to over-rule, contradict, make exceptions to, or decide the meaning of, an infallible teaching by a Council. Such solemn definitions stand on their own authority, that is, on the authority of the Council. Whoever deletes parts of any book of the Bible deletes a part that Trent infallibly taught is sacred and canonical.

Placing variant readings in the footnotes is not the problem that I’m referring to. For example, one passage reads as either 70 times 7, or 77 times. It is not a problem to put one in the text and the other in a note.

The problem is dropping verses from the Bible on the basis of modern textual analysis, despite these verses being found in the old and Latin Vulgate. Such omissions are directly contrary to the infallible teaching of Trent.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with you, but could you give some examples of this (dropping of verses) being done in modern translations?
 
Ron_Conte said:
The ordinary Magisterium, and the temporal authority of the Church, do not have the power to over-rule, contradict, make exceptions to, or decide the meaning of, an infallible teaching by a Council. Such solemn definitions stand on their own authority, that is, on the authority of the Council. Whoever deletes parts of any book of the Bible deletes a part that Trent infallibly taught is sacred and canonical.
Click to expand...
You seem to follow a different “Catholicism” than I do, and you seem to be applying your own private interpretation to the Council of Trent when the Church itself has the authority to interpret it’s own development.
The problem is dropping verses from the Bible on the basis of modern textual analysis, despite these verses being found in the old and Latin Vulgate. Such omissions are directly contrary to the infallible teaching of Trent.
Click to expand...
I don’t question the infallible teaching of Trent and I don’t question the infallible teaching of the same Church centuries later, same Church same Spirit. I believe the Church is more qualified to interpret itself better than anyone else.
 
“…the old Latin vulgate…”

Gotcha. The first New Testament was written in Greek. Could the Greek authors have made the same complaint about the Latin Vulgate?
 
How do you feel about verses not found in the Vulgate?

Which standard would you apply as the Old Latin Vulgate? Is there a particular manuscript that you would use as definitive?
 
So essentially once something is established absolutely nothing should change for absolutely any reason what so ever?
 
COPLAND_3 said:
You seem to follow a different “Catholicism” than I do, and you seem to be applying your own private interpretation to the Council of Trent when the Church itself has the authority to interpret it’s own development.

I don’t question the infallible teaching of Trent and I don’t question the infallible teaching of the same Church centuries later, same Church same Spirit. I believe the Church is more qualified to interpret itself better than anyone else.
Click to expand...
“the Church itself” - the authority of the Church is divided into the teaching authority (Magisterium) and the temporal authority; the Magisterium can teach either infallibly or non-infallibly; the temporal authority decides questions of prudential judgment fallibly. The universal Church includes all the faithful.

Once the Magisterium teaches a doctrine infallibly, it is irreformable; it is not subject to change. Infallible teachings cannot be changed by the non-infallible teaching authority, nor by the temporal authority, nor can they be ‘interpreted’ in way that is plainly contradictory to the explicit meaning of the teaching.

So it is not a tenable position to say, both, that all the books of the Bible are sacred and canonical in all their parts, and that some verses should be dropped from the canon based on textual analysis. Also, the decision to drop verses is being made, in many different versions of the Bible, by translators and scholars. The approval of such a version by a Bishop or committee of Bishops is of the temporal authority of the Church, and does not imply a teaching by the Magisterium (neither non-infallible nor infallible) that those verses are not sacred and canonical, in contradiction to Trent or in ‘interpretation’ of Trent. There is no plausible interpretation of Trent that would allow parts of books to be dropped from the Bible.

"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."
 
KingAlfred said:
“…the old Latin vulgate…”
The first New Testament was written in Greek. Could the Greek authors have made the same complaint about the Latin Vulgate?
Click to expand...
What is the basis for your claim that the NT was written in Greek? Many scholars think that Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. There are some opinions that some other books of the NT were written in Aramaic (Peshitta). I don’t know of any verses in Greek manuscripts that are not in the Vulgate. In any case, the teaching of Trent on this point is infallible. So it does not matter if Greek authors could have said something similar.
Jolly_Joe said:
How do you feel about verses not found in the Vulgate? Which standard would you apply as the Old Latin Vulgate? Is there a particular manuscript that you would use as definitive?
Click to expand...
Which verses are not in the Vulgate?

It is an interesting question as to which edition(s) we should consult to know what all the parts are. But first we must accept the infallible teaching of Trent. We cannot dismiss a dogma of a Council. The Clementine Vulgate would be very useful in this regard.
Starwynd said:
So essentially once something is established absolutely nothing should change for absolutely any reason what so ever?
Click to expand...
Are you not Catholic? The infallible teachings of the Magisterium are irreformable; they cannot be changed for absolutely any reason whatsoever.
 
So you read the “and” as an “or”. That finding a verse is not original and therefore not including it is a violation even when it changes no tradition?
 
Ron_Conte said:
“the Church itself” - the authority of the Church is divided into the teaching authority (Magisterium) and the temporal authority; the Magisterium can teach either infallibly or non-infallibly; the temporal authority decides questions of prudential judgment fallibly. The universal Church includes all the faithful.

Once the Magisterium teaches a doctrine infallibly, it is irreformable; it is not subject to change. Infallible teachings cannot be changed by the non-infallible teaching authority, nor by the temporal authority, nor can they be ‘interpreted’ in way that is plainly contradictory to the explicit meaning of the teaching.

So it is not a tenable position to say, both, that all the books of the Bible are sacred and canonical in all their parts, and that some verses should be dropped from the canon based on textual analysis. Also, the decision to drop verses is being made, in many different versions of the Bible, by translators and scholars. The approval of such a version by a Bishop or committee of Bishops is of the temporal authority of the Church, and does not imply a teaching by the Magisterium (neither non-infallible nor infallible) that those verses are not sacred and canonical, in contradiction to Trent or in ‘interpretation’ of Trent. There is no plausible interpretation of Trent that would allow parts of books to be dropped from the Bible.

"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."
Click to expand...
I see the point that you are making, but I still think you are applying your own interpretation on it. I trust the Bishops and the Nihil obstat/Imprimatur when deciding what is within the boundries of faithfulness.

Plus I am not sure nor convinced that putting certain portions into footnotes would techniquely be dropping it from the Bible. I might do things a little different than that such as leave it there and then put a footnote pointing out that not all manuscripts read the same.

I just wish that you trusted your Church better.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I see the point that you are making, but I still think you are applying your own interpretation on it. I trust the Bishops and the Nihil obstat/Imprimatur when deciding what is within the boundries of faithfulness.

Plus I am not sure nor convinced that putting certain portions into footnotes would techniquely be dropping it from the Bible. I might do things a little different than that such as leave it there and then put a footnote pointing out that not all manuscripts read the same.

I just wish that you trusted your Church better.
Click to expand...
There is a distinction, which is required belief of all members of the Church, between the infallible solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, and the temporal decisions of an individual Bishop, or of a few Bishops. You are treating all teachings and decisions as if they were the same, equating a dogma of a Council to an imprimatur. Individual Bishops and small groups of Bishops do not have the authority to contradict a Council.

As for interpretation, the problem is not that scholars have used a different interpretation of this dogma, but that they are ignoring it completely. They act as if there were no considerations or restrictions other than their own scholarship when deciding to omit verses.

Numerous verses are omitted entirely, being found neither in the text nor in the footnotes. It is fine to have a variant reading in a footnote. But Trent requires that all the parts of the Latin Vulgate be treated as sacred and canonical.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Ron, are you the one who put this together? sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm

If so then great job! I have used that for some time now!
Click to expand...
Yes, SacredBible.org is my site and I put together that Latin/English study Bible. Right now it is mostly for comparing the Latin and English, i.e. for persons studying Biblical Latin. It is not a study Bible in the usual sense of the world. I hope to expand the annotations in the future.
 
AnthonyM2 said:
I don’t disagree with you, but could you give some examples of this (dropping of verses) being done in modern translations?
Click to expand...
Prime example is one that I have stated over and over again. Luke 1:28 only part of the this verse is missing

The Douay-Rhiems reads Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women.

The NAB reads “Hail, favored one, the Lord is with you”

The NAB 1970 read "Hail, so highly favored daughter, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women.

The RSV-CE reads Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.

The Jerusalem Bible reads "Rejoice, so highly favored! The Lord is with you

The Clementine Vulgate reads Ave gratia plena : Dominus tecum : benedicta tu in mulieribus.

You decide which versions agree with what the Council of Trent states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top